Abstract
The aim of this paper is to explain why some verbs such as nuru can alternate between two syntactic forms, while other verbs such as tsukeru, yogosu cannot, as shown in the following examples. a. kabe-ni penki-wo {nuru/tsukeru/*yogosu} wall-on paint-ACC {smear/attach/stain} b. kabe-wo penki-de {nuru/*tsukeru/yogosu} wall-ACC paint-with {smear/attach/stain} Many studies have argued that alternating verbs express both "change of location" and "change of state", while non-alternating verbs have only one of these meanings. However, this is nothing more than saying that nuru can alternate, while tsukeru and yogosu cannot. This paper proposes that in order to distinguish between alternating verbs and non-alternating verbs, it is necessary to find out what types of "change of location" and "change of state" alternating verbs express, and how different these are from "change of location" and "change of state" expressed by non-alternating verbs. The conclusions are as follows: The characteristic of "change of location" expressed by alternating verbs is that the manner of existence of the object is determined according to the shape or other conditions of the location. Furthermore, the characteristic of "change of state" expressed by alternating verbs is that the global aspect of the object changes by being accompanied with material, but the properties of the object itself do not change. These types of "change of location" and "change of state" can be switched from one to the other, depending upon how they are interpreted, and this is why these verbs can alternate. On the other hand, verbs like tsukeru and yogosu, which do not express these types of changes, cannot alternate. The approach proposed in this paper, which claims that the possibility of alternating is determined at the lower level of verb class meaning, can also be applied to other types of alternations.
